Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Nurse practitioner peer review: process and evaluation.

S L Sheahan1, C Simpson, M K Rayens

  • 1University of Kentucky College of Nursing, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.

Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
|April 5, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Exploring the impact of air conditioning on the indoor air quality of UK homes.

Journal of physics. Conference series·2026
Same author

From plants to animals: Pythium, Lagenidium, Aphanomyces, and other oomycete pathogens of animals seen through a one-health lens.

Australian veterinary journal·2026
Same author

Gas gangrene due to Clostridium haemolyticum in a cat with aortic thromboembolism treated using clopidogrel and rivaroxaban.

Australian veterinary journal·2024
Same author

Spectral Networks and Stability Conditions for Fukaya Categories with Coefficients.

Communications in mathematical physics·2024
Same author

Evidence of horizontal urban heat advection in London using six years of data from a citizen weather station network.

Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site]·2023
Same author

Could Alveogyl cause nerve injury?

British dental journal·2022
Same journal

The consensus model for regulation of APRNs: Implications for nurse practitioners.

Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners·2015
Same journal

Effectiveness of nurse practitioner coordinated team group visits for type 2 diabetes in medically underserved Appalachia.

Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners·2012
Same journal

Prevalence of postpartum depression among Hispanic immigrant women.

Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners·2012
Same journal

A description of barriers and facilitators to childhood vaccinations in the military health system.

Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners·2012
Same journal

Evidence-based practice for the busy nurse practitioner: part three: critical appraisal process.

Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners·2012
Same journal

Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome and metabolic syndrome: a synergistic cardiovascular risk factor.

Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners·2012
See all related articles

Nurse practitioner (NP) peer review showed low consistency among participants, indicating significant differences in evaluations. This highlights the need for standardized processes and motivation for effective NP peer review programs.

Area of Science:

  • Nursing Practice
  • Healthcare Quality Improvement
  • Professional Development

Background:

  • Peer review is a critical component of professional development and quality assurance in healthcare.
  • Implementing structured peer review programs for nurse practitioners (NPs) can enhance patient care and identify areas for improvement.
  • The Veteran's Affairs (VA) system offers a unique setting for evaluating NP practice patterns.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To describe the initiation and evaluation of a nurse practitioner (NP) peer review program.
  • To assess the consistency and effectiveness of peer reviews conducted by NPs within a VA Medical Center.
  • To identify factors influencing the outcome of NP peer review processes.

Main Methods:

  • A cohort of 15 NPs conducted peer reviews on 163 medical records using a standardized form.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Two NP researchers re-reviewed each medical record to assess inter-rater reliability.
  • Statistical analysis included Intraclass Correlation (ICC) and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine review congruency.

    • Main Results:

    • A low Intraclass Correlation (ICC) coefficient of r = 0.37 was observed among the 15 NPs.
    • Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant differences in review outcomes among the participating NPs (F = 11.92, p < .0001).
    • These findings suggest variability in how NPs conducted and interpreted peer reviews.

    Conclusions:

    • The effectiveness of NP peer review is influenced by NP motivation, practice site context, process standardization, and participation levels.
    • Peer review effectively identified charting deficiencies and potential topics for continuing education and risk management.
    • Further standardization and motivational strategies are needed to improve consistency in NP peer review.